Wednesday, June 23, 2010

A consensus can be wrong (though usually it isn't completely wrong in a modern physical science). Groupthink certainly can apply. Social pressures and even financial pressures can apply. I don't think anything like that is the issue here, but you may disagree. The existence of a consensus is, therefore, useful evidence in decision making but it doesn't convey certainty...

It turns out that uncertainties in the energetic responses of Earth climate systems are more than 10 times larger than the entire energetic effect of increased CO2.15 If the uncertainty is larger than the effect, the effect itself becomes moot. If the effect itself is debatable, then what is the IPCC talking about? And from where comes the certainty of a large CO2 impact on climate? _Skeptic_via_WUWT

Carbon trading was mid-wifed by IPPC. Like an over-fed obese baby, it soon ballooned into a huge, huge business – courtesy political patronage. You have high and mighty (political and business) sharks involved in it. Lately they suffered significant losses on stock markets as much due to public sentiment against IPCC’s fraudulent science in support of global warming as due to Dr. Pachauri’s arrogant defence of that. However, current American public opinion, courtesy BP’s Gulf oil spill, could turn the tables again in their favour. In this charged environment a revalidation of global warming by IPCC’s “thousands of scientist” imminently suits both the carbon-politico-business class and Dr. Pachauri. Neither would like to see this opportunity missed. The more he mellows towards opposition and shows himself open to debate, the easier it will be for the carbon-political-business class to argue in his favour. So the conciliatory language that Dr. Pachauri has suddenly found is like the American bankers’ brief strategic pause in the use of their private jets. If he gets bailed out, it will soon be business as usual.